ENG A65DC 5005. Seller claims a genuine clubman "one of 203" Now there is absolutely nothing on this bike to suggest it was ever in Clubman trim and there were a large number of Lightning and Lightning Rocket models sold with the DC suffix in 64 and 65.

It doesn't really matter to me either I've got a Clubman; albeit one that BSA probably never built and have no interest in buying this one. However having owned a number of A65s and built an A50 Clubman from scratch I am genuinely interested as to whether or not this bike was dispatched from the factory in clubman trim. If it was, then there is nothing left on the bike of the clubman equipment you would expect to see. I have met a number of people who believe that the DC suffix means that the bike was a clubman, it does not; BSA certainly sold the Lightning in the UK with the CR box as an option. I used to own one in the 1970s

I'm no expert on this but from the period photos I have seen the stock lightnings used the flat ( later style) yokes, where as the clubmans used the drop yoke like the star models.

I could be wrong, and besides after 40+ years any of these parts could have been changed multiple times. Even if it isn't genuine it has the makings for a nice replica, for its condition though it's making a lot of money so far.

I don't know for sure if I had a true Lightning Clubman back in the day. It was an A65LC engine number for sure, so was it a lightning Clubman or a Lightning with a Close ratio box and just a facsimile of a LC? I'd like to know just out of interest.

All Roy Bacon's books do is only make matters worse how he lists the Lightning Clubmans as A65LC in his specification pages in "Twins & Triples", yet doesn't even mention them in the Engine & Frame numbers listings. No mention of specific engine numbers in his BSA Twin restoration book either.I've only just got a copy of "BSA unit construction Twins the complete story" and there is a reference to the Lightning Clubman as having an engine number of A65D so maybe I have accept that as fact and that mine was a Lightning with a close ratio box and then made to look like it was an LC

Either way, even if it's the real deal there's a lot of money to be spent on it and the bidding doesn't look like it's stopped yet.What would it be worth properly restored?If you've just got to have a Lightning Clubman it's a viable restoration project, though being an A65 I tend to think it's going to be a labour of love with minimal margins if just done to make a profitPersonally I think while rarer than the Spitfires I'd sooner have my MK II with the hassle of the GP's or not as I've seen a couple of well behaved easy starting MK 2's on YouTube that seem to fly in the face of the normal "Pull'em off" attitudes.

And as for giving forgers any kind of kudos, come on! They are second only to scumbag drug dealers or pedophiles regardless of how good a job they do. Absolute R soles in my book.

There was a thread a couple of years back on the subject of how many Lightning Clubman models were made and engine numbers. - Can't find it at the moment. As I recall there was some mention of a small batch made in 66. A65LC as a prefix would mean to me, a 66 engine with a C/R box, so not sure as to whether there was a batch made in 66 with that code. All genuine Clubman models from 64/65 will have A65DC codes. The point I was making at the top of this thread is that it is a common misconception that any engine A50 or A65, with a DC suffix came from a Clubman. In simple terms the rule is Clubman = DC, DC does not = Clubman.

With you on the forgers which is why it's so important that we share our knowledge on here to dispel the myths.

IMO, a Lightning Clubman should have an engine code of A65DC. But Lightning Rockets exist with that engine code as do Lightnings. You need to check the dispatch records to verify. The differences between the 3 models were mostly cosmetic. All 3 share the same forks/yokes with a droop top yoke.

There are "references" to 1966 Lightning Clubmans being built using engine code A65LC. Supposedly 29 were built. I am not convinced this is true.

You also have some 1969 engines with engine code A65LC built before the S/N was changed to denote year/month.

The generally accepted number is 190 were built, in 64/65 model years.

I feel a bit better now knowing my bike was 99% positive in being a lightning with a close ration box and not a really rare bird. I had to swap out the gearbox cluster not knowing it was a close ratio box. It had clutch slip in 3rd gear only!!! I kept thinking there was something wrong with the clutch until the number of stripped teeth accumulated in the well under the selector leaving me with only 1-3rd and then later really wrecking the engine when the left hand rod let go on a high speed return home from Ipswich. That was a really long push of several miles to get it back home but was younger and fitter then!The bike had ace bars but the rear sets were ridgy didge after market ones with alloy mounting plates both sides.Must have been someones idea to put together a Clubman look alike but with some extras.The 5 gallon alloy tank used to look brilliant when I got stuck into it with the Solvol Autsol.Happy days!Looks like it's got the cranked kick start from the LC.My input was the clipons and the high level pipes with 4" cooling clamps! short revese cone megas and the blue repainted frame, velocity stacks on the monoblocs and the black fibre glass racing front guard.I thought I was Bill Ivy.Wish I'd been better with the camera back then.

Just found in the Roy Bacon "BSA Twin Restoration" book while looking for any info on the "Silentbloc" bearings a clear listing of the Lightning Clubman machines as having an A65DC engine number.I can die happy now knowing I only blew up just a regular nothing too special Lightning

IMO, a Lightning Clubman should have an engine code of A65DC. But Lightning Rockets exist with that engine code as do Lightnings. You need to check the dispatch records to verify. The differences between the 3 models were mostly cosmetic. All 3 share the same forks/yokes with a droop top yoke.

There are "references" to 1966 Lightning Clubmans being built using engine code A65LC. Supposedly 29 were built. I am not convinced this is true.

You also have some 1969 engines with engine code A65LC built before the S/N was changed to denote year/month.

The generally accepted number is 190 were built, in 64/65 model years.

John,Another source is the BSA Owners Club UK engine and frame listing on their website. This states that 1965 A65DC was both Lightning and Lightning Clubman. No Lightning Clubmans in 1964. 1966 was A65LC only and was only the Lightning Clubman (the Lightning was just A65L). In 1969 a Lightning had A65LC but the numbers started at 00101, not 101. So you may well have had a real one.Don't know if their listing is dead accurate, but I've had problems with Bacon's accuracy with other BSAs....FWIWBTW welcome to the BSA NSW club!Mebbo

"And as for giving forgers any kind of kudos, come on! They are second only to scumbag drug dealers or paedophiles regardless of how good a job they do. Absolute R soles in my book."I just wonder, does this bias extend to replacement parts and after market upgrades? Does it frown on:New AMAL Carbs? Electronic ignition? Fresh tyres? All after market or “pattern” parts, (so that you can only use alleged NOS parts.)? Modifications like SRM crank conversions? Etc, etc.....Or does it just mean that you have got to have frame and engine numbers (not so hard to fake) that coincide with some apparently rather dated, idealistic and rubbery restoration guides?(I do have most of these.) Not having a go here, just genuinely curious as to the precise definition of fake and forgery in the context of our hobby. Perhaps it depends on whether we are out to build museum exhibits or practical road going machines that can perform safely and reliably in modern traffic conditions. I know which I prefer.IMHO-History is a pack of lies. Written by winners and read by losers."

There are 2 articles on Lightning Clubmans in June's Classic Bike Guide, one on the restoration of an original (not enough in the article to verify this but no alloy rims on the before or after photos, mention of a close ratio box with rearsets and reverse camplate but nothing to confirm the bike as found had them) and a 69 std Lightning changed to being a replica.

It has the bent and reversed gear lever which means a reverse cam plate would give you the down for first, but the article then goes on to say the changes were to give the up for first pattern preferred by racers. A very odd and confusing article, but sadly the normal std for these comics. As the restorer has put a SM Mk2 on the back I doubt its ever going above 50mph .

It has the bent and reversed gear lever which means a reverse cam plate would give you the down for first, but the article then goes on to say the changes were to give the up for first pattern preferred by racers. A very odd and confusing article, but sadly the normal std for these comics. As the restorer has put a SM Mk2 on the back I doubt its ever going above 50mph .

So you are saying who ever wrote the article doesn't know f#ck all about an A65......